Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is the terrorist who attempted to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day just as the plane was beginning its descent into Detroit. He had an explosive pack sewn into his underwear. Hard to believe that youthful smiling face hides evil intent. The passengers on that fateful flight were blessed with good fortune when the device flamed, and then failed. For the full story, read this ABC News report.

Traveling by air makes me nervous in the best of times. This recent incident has now destroyed my confidence in airport security, especially if an insider is involved. I travel abroad annually, so in light of this attempted attack, I will rethink my future travel plans. One thing is certain, if I decide to fly to the U.K. (or even domestic) again, my instincts will be running in hyperdrive as I observe my fellow travelers, which begs the question, what kind of people and behaviors should I take notice of?

After searching the internet, I found some answers in a research study titled The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why? This study was written in 1999 under an interagency agreement with the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress. Although somewhat dated, readers will find the researcher's comments to be prescient and relevant to today. It may surprise you to learn that we may have more to fear from women terrorists because they do a better job of hiding nervousness.

I have placed excerpts from the study below. Since airport security is not the panacea of protection we thought it was, part of the solution mentioned in this report is the need for public awareness, and a willingness to report suspicious behavior.

THE SOCIOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY OF TERRORISM: WHO BECOMES A TERRORIST AND WHY? (Also available in book form)[emphasis has been added in key places]

The emergence of amorphous and largely unknown terrorist individuals and groups operating independently (freelancers) and the new recruitment patterns of some groups, such as recruiting suicide commandos, female and child terrorists, and scientists capable of developing weapons of mass destruction, provide a measure of urgency to increasing our understanding of the psychological and sociological dynamics of terrorist groups and individuals. The approach used in this study is twofold. First, the study examines the relevant literature and assesses the current knowledge of the subject. Second, the study seeks to develop psychological and sociological profiles of foreign terrorist individuals and selected groups to use as case studies in assessing trends, motivations, likely behavior, and actions that might deter such behavior, as well as reveal vulnerabilities that would aid in combating terrorist groups and individuals.

According to Oots and Wiegele, an individual moves from being a potential terrorist to being an actual terrorist through a process that is psychological, physiological, and political. "If the neurophysiological model of aggression is realistic," Oots and Wiegele assert, "there is no basis for the argument that terrorism could be eliminated if its sociopolitical causes were eliminated." They characterize the potential terrorist as "a frustrated individual who has become aroused and has repeatedly experienced the fight or flight syndrome. Moreover, after these repeated arousals, the potential terrorist seeks relief through an aggressive act and also seeks, in part, to remove the initial cause of his frustration by achieving the political goal which he has hitherto been denied."

D. Guttman (1979) also sees terrorist actions as being aimed more at the audience than at the immediate victims. It is, after all, the audience that may have to meet the terrorist's demands. Moreover, in Guttman's analysis, the terrorist requires a liberal rather than a right-wing audience for success. Liberals make the terrorist respectable by accepting the ideology that the terrorist alleges informs his or her acts. The terrorist also requires liberal control of the media for the transmission of his or her ideology.

Existing works that attempt to explain religious fundamentalism often rely on modernization theory and point to a crisis of identity, explaining religious fundamentalism as an antidote to the dislocations resulting from rapid change, or modernization. Islamic fundamentalism in particular is often explained as a defense against threats posed by modernization to a religious group's traditional identity. Rejecting the idea of fundamentalism as pathology, rational choice theorists point to unequal socioeconomic development as the basic reason for the discontent and alienation these individuals experience. Caught between an Islamic culture that provides moral values and spiritual satisfaction and a modernizing Western culture that provides access to material improvement, many Muslims find an answer to resulting anxiety, alienation, and disorientation through an absolute dedication to an Islamic way of life. Accordingly, the Islamic fundamentalist is commonly depicted as an acutely alienated individual, with dogmatic and rigid beliefs and an inferiority complex, and as idealistic and devoted to an austere lifestyle filled with struggle and sacrifice.

In the 1990s, however, empirical studies of Islamic groups have questioned this view. V. J. Hoffman-Ladd, for example, suggests that fundamentalists are not necessarily ignorant and downtrodden, according to the stereotype, but frequently students and university graduates in the physical sciences, although often students with rural or traditionally religious backgrounds. In his view, fundamentalism is more of a revolt of young people caught between a traditional past and a secular Western education. R. Euben and Bernard Lewis argue separately that there is a cognitive collision between Western and fundamentalist worldviews. Focusing on Sunni fundamentalists, Euben argues that their goals are perceived not as self-interests but rather as moral imperatives, and that their worldviews differ in critical ways from Western worldviews.

Edgar O'Ballance (1979) suggests the following essential characteristics of the "successful" terrorist: dedication, including absolute obedience to the leader of the movement; personal bravery; a lack of feelings of pity or remorse even though victims are likely to include innocent men, women, and children; a fairly high standard of intelligence, for a terrorist must collect and analyze information, devise and implement complex plans, and evade police and security forces; a fairly high degree of sophistication, in order to be able to blend into the first-class section on airliners, stay at first-class hotels, and mix inconspicuously with the international executive set; and be a reasonably good educational background and possession of a fair share of general knowledge (a university degree is almost mandatory), including being able to speak English as well as one other major language.

Increasingly, terrorist groups are recruiting members who possess a high degree of intellectualism and idealism, are highly educated, and are well trained in a legitimate profession.

In profiling the terrorist, some generalizations can be made on the basis on this examination of the literature on the psychology and sociology of terrorism published over the past three decades. One finding is that, unfortunately for profiling purposes, there does not appear to be a single terrorist personality . This seems to be the consensus among terrorism psychologists as well as political scientists and sociologists. The personalities of terrorists may be as diverse as the personalities of people in any lawful profession. There do not appear to be any visibly detectable personality traits that would allow authorities to identify a terrorist.

Another finding is that the terrorist is not diagnosably psychopathic or mentally sick. Contrary to the stereotype that the terrorist is a psychopath or otherwise mentally disturbed, the terrorist is actually quite sane, although deluded by an ideological or religious way of viewing the world.

The highly selective terrorist recruitment process explains why most terrorist groups have only a few pathological members. Candidates who exhibit signs of psychopathy or other mental illness are deselected in the interest of group survival. Terrorist groups need members whose behavior appears to be normal and who would not arouse suspicion. A member who exhibits traits of psychopathy or any noticeable degree of mental illness would only be a liability for the group, whatever his or her skills. That individual could not be depended on to carry out the assigned mission. On the contrary, such an individual would be more likely to sabotage the group by, for example, botching an operation or revealing group secrets if captured. Nor would a psychotic member be likely to enhance group solidarity.

. . . the new generation of Islamic terrorists, be they key operatives such as the imprisoned Ramzi Yousef, or leaders such as Osama bin Laden, are well educated and motivated by their religious ideologies. The religiously motivated terrorists are more dangerous than the politically motivated terrorists because they are the ones most likely to develop and use weapons of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in pursuit of their messianic or apocalyptic visions. The level of intelligence of a terrorist group's leaders may determine the longevity of the group.

Unanticipated stress and nervousness may be a hazard of the profession, and a terrorist's nervousness could alert security personnel in instances where, for example, a hijacker is boarding an aircraft, or hostage-takers posing as visitors are infiltrating a government building. The terrorist undoubtedly has higher levels of stress than most people in lawful professions. However, most terrorists are trained to cope with nervousness. Female terrorists are known to be particularly cool under pressure. Leila Khaled and Kim Hyun Hee mention in their autobiographies how they kept their nervousness under control by reminding themselves of, and being totally convinced of, the importance of their missions.

Indeed, because of their coolness under pressure, their obsessive dedication to the cause of their group, and their need to prove themselves to their male comrades, women make formidable terrorists and have proven to be more dangerous than male terrorists. Hizballah, the LTTE, and PKK are among the groups that have used attractive young women as suicide body-bombers to great effect. Suicide body-bombers are trained to be totally at ease and confident when approaching their target, although not all suicide terrorists are able to act normally in approaching their target.

International terrorists generally appear to be predominately either leftist or Islamic. A profiling system could possibly narrow the statistical probability that an unknown individual boarding an airliner might be a terrorist if it could be accurately determined that most terrorists are of a certain race, culture, religion, or nationality. In the absence of statistical data, however, it cannot be determined here whether members of any particular race, religion, or nationality are responsible for most acts of international terrorism. Until those figures become available, smaller-scale terrorist group profiles might be more useful. For example, a case could be made that U.S. Customs personnel should give extra scrutiny to the passports of young foreigners claiming to be "students" and meeting the following general description: physically fit males in their early twenties of Egyptian, Jordanian, Yemeni, Iraqi, Algerian, Syrian, or Sudanese nationality, or Arabs bearing valid British passports, in that order. These characteristics generally describe the core membership of Osama bin Laden's Arab "Afghans" (see Glossary), also known as the Armed Islamic Movement (AIM), who are being trained to attack the United States with WMD.

El Al’s passenger screening system, established in the early 1970s, relies on psychological profiling techniques backed up with high-technology equipment. This system has been highly effective: the last successful hijacking of an El Al jet was in 1968, when Palestinian terrorists diverted a flight from Rome to Algiers.34 Whereas the United States gives priority to screening baggage rather than people, Israel’s security model aims at ferreting out individuals with terrorist intentions. This profiling process relies on access to intelligence and careful observation of would-be passengers.

The main reason for Israel’s primary emphasis on human factors is that advances in explosives technology have made it increasingly difficult to find bombs hidden in luggage. Plastic explosives can now be disguised in almost every conceivable form, including shoe soles, toys, cell phones, and clothing. Moreover, the 11 September terrorists did not carry guns or explosive devices but used small, easily concealed weapons (box-cutters) to hijack four airliners and transform them into flying bombs. Although scissors and box-cutters are now banned from carry-on bags, determined terrorists could employ seemingly benign objects, such as the stiletto heel of a woman’s shoe or a man’s belt, to seize control of an aircraft in flight.

According to David Harel, an aviation security specialist with Shin Bet, some type of profiling system is essential because it is impractical to subject every passenger to a high level of scrutiny. Travelers on El Al are told to arrive at the airport three hours before a flight to go through preliminary screening. Passengers are categorized at the outset as to whether they are Israeli Jews, foreign-born Jews, and so forth, with Arabs and certain other foreigners most likely to be profiled. The fact that the El Al security system is owned and operated by the Israeli government facilitates the use of intelligence and law-enforcement databases to help identify the small minority of passengers who may have criminal or terrorist intent.35

In addition to searching government watch lists, interviewers ask each traveler a detailed set of questions that takes several minutes. Based on this initial screening, the great majority of El Al passengers are classified as low risk and subjected to a routine level of security. About 1%, however, are flagged as high risk because they are on a government watch list or appear nervous at the checkpoint, or because their answers or behavior arouse suspicion. These individuals are diverted into a more intensive screening that takes an average of 57 minutes per person.36 The process involves a lengthy personal interview, a complete search of all carry-on bags, and the use of sophisticated explosives detection equipment. For example, when Richard Reid (the future “shoe bomber”) decided to fly in July 2001 from Amsterdam to Israel, allegedly to check out terrorist targets, El Al security personnel selected him for profiling and subjected him to a full security check from head to toe (including an X-ray scan of his shoes) that showed he carried no bomb or weapon. Although Reid was allowed to board the plane, El Al remained suspicious and made sure he was sitting near an armed sky marshal, who was instructed to keep a close watch on him.37 American Airlines was not as careful, however, and allowed Reid to board a flight from Paris to Miami in December 2001. This time the al-Qaeda operative carried an explosive device, concealed in a shoe, and he attempted to detonate the explosive in mid-flight. Only timely intervention by the other passengers and crew prevented a major disaster.

Nearly ten years have passed since 9/11. How many lives are we willing to sacrifice to the gods of political correctness before we will lose our squeamishness about profiling?

Monday, December 28, 2009

These four articles tell you all you need to know, and maybe some things you don't want to know, about President Barack Obama's youthful mentor and friend, Communist Frank Marshall Davis. Mr. Davis was a close friend of the Dunham family.

Links to articles about Davis and Obama are below, followed by remarks from leaders in the Communist Party USA about Obama. To read the complete articles, click the titles.

The mainstream media refused to discuss this connection in any meaningful way during the presidential campaign. Even now they refuse to touch the subject. Maybe they approve because he's a Democrat? They would have sung a different tune if Barack Obama had been a Republican candidate. This connection would have been front-page throughout the campaign.

In any case, deploring these convictions in Hawaii was an African-American poet and journalist by the name of Frank Marshall Davis, who was certainly in the orbit of the CP [Communist Party] – if not a member – and who was born in Kansas and spent a good deal of his adult life in Chicago, before decamping to Honolulu in 1948 at the suggestion of his good friend Paul Robeson. Eventually, he befriended another family – a Euro-American family – that had migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago. In his best selling memoir ‘Dreams of my Father’, the author speaks warmly of an older black poet, he identifies simply as "Frank" as being a decisive influence in helping him to find his present identity as an African-American, a people who have been the least anticommunist and the most left-leaning of any constituency in this nation – though you would never know it from reading so-called left journals of opinion. At some point in the future, a teacher will add to her syllabus Barack’s memoir and instruct her students to read it alongside Frank Marshall Davis’ equally affecting memoir, "Living the Blues" and when that day comes, I’m sure a future student will not only examine critically the Frankenstein monsters that US imperialism created in order to subdue Communist parties . . .

It was in Chicago that Obama became a "community organizer" and came into contact with more far-left political forces, including the Democratic Socialists of America, which maintains close ties to European socialist groups and parties through the Socialist International (SI), and two former members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), William Ayers and Carl Davidson.

Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama's half-sister, told the Associated Press recently that her grandfather had seen Mr Davis was “a point of connection, a bridge if you will, to the larger African-American experience for my brother".

In his memoir, Mr Obama recounts how he visited Mr Davis on several occasions, apparently at junctures when he was grappling with racial issues, to seek his counsel.

Aside from electing a Communist president, running a Communist presidential candidate for the purposes of raising our advanced demands would also be un-strategic in this period. Again, our goal is to remove the Ultra-right from power right now, and currently we can only do this through the Democratic Party.

This election is not about progressive Democrats vs Blue dogs, and it isn’t even about how progressive Barack Obama is or can be. This election is about an overwhelming majority of Americans’ frustration with the direction the Ultra-right has taken our country into. This election is about turning a corner in the fights for working people. And working people understand we can do that best with a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic president.

We can disagree with the Obama administration without being disagreeable. Our tone should be respectful. We now have not simply a friend, but a people's advocate in the White House.

If the answer is that U.S. capitalism is entering a period of long-term stagnation then the economic recovery plan must include not only a sizeable and sustained economic stimulus, but also far-reaching political and economic reforms in order to restructure the economy along new lines. One without the other is not enough. Both economic stimulus and political-economic restructuring are necessary if U.S. economy is to have any chance of resuming a developmental growth path that is robust, sustainable (in a double sense: economically and environmentally) and favors the interests of the working class and its allies.

If this is the case, the Obama administration and the broad coalition that supports him will almost inevitably have to consider—and they already are—the following measures:

* Public ownership of the financial system and the elimination of the shadow banking system and exotic derivatives.

* Public control of the Federal Reserve Bank.

* Counter-crisis spending of a bigger size and scope to invigorate and sustain a full recovery and meet human needs—something that the New Deal never accomplished.

* Strengthening of union rights in order to rebalance the power between labor and capital in the economic and political arenas.

* Trade agreements that have at their core the protection and advancement of international working-class interests.

* Equality in conditions of life for racial minorities and women.

* Democratic public takeover of the energy complex as well as a readiness to consider the takeover of other basic industries whose future is problematic in private hands.

* Rerouting investment capital from unproductive investment (military, finance and so forth) to productive investment in a green economy and public infrastructure.

* Changing direction of our nation’s foreign policy toward cooperation, disarmament, and diplomacy. We can’t have threats, guns and military occupations on the one hand and butter, democracy, goodwill, and peace on the other.

* Full-scale assault on global warming.

* Serious and sustained commitment to assisting the developing countries, which are locked in poverty and misery.

Saturday, December 26, 2009

This very thought-provoking and educational article is reprinted in its entirety with permission from the author. The original article appeared 8/26/09 on the blog of the black conservative thinker and writer Digital Publius.

Of Toms and Sambos
By Digital Publius

We have a new Mayor in the city of Detroit, prominent business man and Hall of Fame NBA star Dave Bing. “I wish Dave Bing would run for mayor”, “Now Dave Bing is the one that should run for mayor.” “If Dave Bing ran for mayor I’d vote for him in a second.” You could hear words like these echoing from the propped open doors of Detroit’s barber shops, over the sound of squeaky shopping cart wheels in the local grocer and across the fellowship halls of every church denomination extant in the city.

Dave Bing did finally rouse himself and has become Mayor and now that he has suggested some rather draconian measures to attack the problems facing what could be the most problematical city in the union; a new refrain has replaced the sanguine cries of “run Dave run!”, Now we hear the stentorian and ugly crowd calling Dave Bing a “straw hat negro” and an “Uncle Tom”.

I even heard Tom Barrow, a man who has sought the office of Mayor for decades without positive results and the likely main challenger to Bing in the upcoming elections refer to Mr Bing as the tool of the Republicans who are trying to take over the city. I am not one for repeating platitudes but, the definition of insanity is to do the same thing repeatedly and expect a different result. Detroit has elected the same kinds of liberal democratic politicians without exception for well over thirty years.

Detroit has not had a republican or even a conservative democrat in any position of authority for decades. In fact we have scarcely had any whites in government in Detroit, the few who have gained office in the city have been liberals of the highest order. What we have seen since we have chosen to elect a singular political point of view in our once great city, is a steady decline in services, safety, education, employment, morale, pride and outside esteem.

All this without benefit of blaming it on the “MAN”, in Detroit the “MAN” is manifestly black, (tongue planted firmly in cheek) and we, of course, cannot be blamed for anything that is going wrong within our own community.

I am not sure if I support the measures that Mr. Bing is proposing, frankly I haven’t yet looked closely at the issues, I do know that I will never support anyone who uses the term “Uncle Tom”. Anyone who uses the term Uncle Tom is profoundly ignorant and has never read “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” or they would most assuredly never call someone an Uncle Tom in a derogatory manner, unless of course they have read the book and are also profoundly evil.

Lets look at this epithet Uncle Tom in hopes of divining how it could have come to represent a person who betrays the best interests of his people in favor of an oppressor. I became a born again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ some fifteen years ago after being a Muslim for the first thirty years of my life. The Bible says that when you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, you take on the mind of Christ, that He performs a spiritual circumcision of the heart, that He replaces your heart of stone with one of flesh. This was certainly true in my case.

I began to see the world in an entirely different light, it was as if scales literally fell from my eyes and I was seeing the world for the very first time. An unforeseen by-product of that new sight was a fundamental change in my politics, I voted for Bill Clinton the first time around, but after a couple of years of Biblical study I couldn’t vote for him the second time. It was at this point that I read “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” on what I then thought a whim.

Uncle Tom’s Cabin is an astonishing book that remains relevant even to this day, every American should read it, as should every Christian in the entire world. By design it is filled with types and archetypes. Uncle Tom, the protagonist of this allegory is a type of Christ. Tom is the perfect Christian, in fact he is a super Christian, which sheds light on why the enemy of mankind has worked so devilishly hard to turn Uncle Tom into a pejorative.

Uncle Tom faces ignorance and the most bestial cruelty with supernatural Christlike compassion, patience and understanding, He acknowledges the seemingly overpowering evil of chattel slavery whilst recognizing the Christian mandate of allowing God to ultimately right the wrongs inflicted upon him. Tom had faith in the knowledge that what he suffered on earth was fleeting and nothing compared to an eternity of peace which God Himself prepares for those who believe in Him. Tom had forgiveness in his heart and a desire to see that all those who he encountered even if they had done him evil repent and come to faith in Christ.

“Hulloa, There! Sambo! Quimbo! All hands!” called Legree, coming to the quarters, when the men and women were just returning from work. “There’s two runaways in the swamps. I’ll give five dollars to any nigger as catches ‘em. Turn out the dogs! Turn out Tiger, and Fury, and the rest!”

Simon Legree is the archetypical evil slave owner that Tom finds himself in the clutches of late in life. Sambo and Quimbo are Legree’s exceedingly cruel black overseers. Legree having purchased Tom because of his intelligence with the mind of putting him in charge, soon finds him incapable of the inhumanity necessary to fill the job and the sadistically bruitish Sambo and Quinbo become along with their master his constant tormentors.

Sambo and Quimbo are the true “straw hat negroes”, they have traded their souls for the few creature comforts their betrayals can purchase them. We have seen their kind in latter times as well in a post slavery America. Margaret Sanger the founder of planned parenthood recruited black pastors and leaders to sell her diabolical ideas of population control and eugenics and to this very day blacks, by Sanger’s intent, are the group accounting for the majority of the abortions being carried out across our nation. Black babies are being slaughtered wholesale with the compliance of liberal black leadership.

The Democratic party has a long history of recruiting black folks, to sell black folks, on ideas that their common sense initially reject. Democrats going back to Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt have always been marvelously adept at finding those pliable silver tongued blacks willing to take favors for their influence in the black community. Wilson and Roosevelt in the early days never failed to betray black folks after they procured their votes. betrayals I don’t have space to illustrate in this particular article but are outlined brilliantly in Wayne Perryman’s Unfounded Loyalty and Bruce Bartlett’s Wrong on Race. Sadly black folks have woefully short memories and after a time they forget that the democrats fail to deliver on promises and fall victim again and again to the same liberal sweet talk.

“Now, Quimbo,” said Legree, as he stretched himself down in the sitting-room. “you jest go and walk that Tom up here, right away! The old cuss is at the bottom of this yer whole matter; and I’ll have it out of his old black hide, or I’ll know the reason why!”

“Sambo and Quimbo, both, though hating each other, were joined in one mind by a no less cordial hatred of Tom. Legree had told them, at first, that he had bought him for a general overseer, in his absence; and this had begun an ill will, on their part, which had increased, in their debased and servile natures, as they saw him becoming obnoxious to their master’s displeasure. Quimbo, therefore, departed, with a will, to execute his orders.”

The modern day Sambos and Quimbos fall under two categories They are the poverty pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who may have begun on the proper path but have since been co-opted by the racist liberal democrats into peddling programs to black folks that have the virtue of keeping them servile and in constant need of the reassuring hand of the government in their affairs, whilst playing up perceived indignities so they can remain the preeminent spokes persons for the black community.

And you have the just plain stupid black leaders who have been selectively bred to drink the Kool-Aid with an insatiable thirst despite the glaring evidence of the devastating toll that liberal policies have wreaked upon the black community. These are the people that are most responsible for the day to day promotion of the liberal mindset, they are the triumph of the changed southern democratic strategy adopted after they realized they couldn’t win with fire hoses, attack dogs and the hangmen’s noose.

If you can no longer lynch them and beat them with sticks, rot them from within, sap their will to overcome by their own energy, control them with entitlements so they live in constant fear of losing them. This way they stay ignorant and servile and they will thank their oppressors who now love them.

It is ironic that urban areas like Detroit, decaying, collapsing under the weight of it’s own corruption, rife with failed liberal ideologies, choking to death on the putrid fumes of decaying democratic politics are surrounded by suburban areas embracing sound principles that are flourishing. In fact many of the so called leaders are moving to these areas in search of what is not being delivered by liberal promises in the cities. It is my prayer that as those urban dwellers seek satisfaction in the suburbs they don’t bring the liberal politics of the city with them and seek public office.

As the Sambos and Quimbos of the antebellum south took offense to the uppity Tom with his Christian ideas that compelled him to displease their master and were quick to punish him for not performing tasks that they have profited from carrying out; so too the modern day versions are quick to pounce upon any who do not toe the line of black liberal orthodoxy. The Sharptons, Jacksons, Congressman John Conyers of the world are never so ferocious as when they are denouncing the Steeles, Sowells, or J.C. Watts who would dare oppose their lock step thinking and are outspoken critics of their liberal white masters who’ve been so good to them.

“Quimbo seized him... ‘and no mistake! See how ye’ll look, now, helpin’ Mas’r’s niggers to run away! See what ye’ll get’”

Indeed! see what you get when you try to express a competing idea?

“Well, Tom!” said Legree. walking up, and seizing him by the collar of his coat, and speaking through his teeth, in a paroxysm of determined rage, “do you know I’ve made up my mind to KILL you?”

After one more appeal to Simon Legree to repent, where Tom declares that he would happily give every ounce of his blood to save Legree’s precious soul, Tom is beaten to death carrying to his grave the hiding place of the escaped slaves. Before he dies Sambo and Quimbo, upon seeing Tom’s bravery facing death and the perplexing mercy he showed them and Legree during his murder in forgiving them, show genuine regret for the parts they played in his death, and they implore Tom to share his faith in Christ with them and Tom prays with them and leads them both to Christ just before he breaths his last.

This all begs the question, how did Uncle Tom become the symbol of race betrayal when he died to protect his fellow slaves? It begins with Malcolm X, not as a castigation of Tom as one who was an unctuous betrayer, but rather denouncing his Christian sacrifice. Malcolm was declaring that he would not give up his life with docility as Tom did, but that he would resist and fight by “any means necessary” This was an attack on the concept of Christ’s self sacrifice and the Christian ethic of love for ones enemies.

For those of us who believe in the super natural we recognize that this is the way that the devil works, he very subtly twists things so that people reject that which is good in favor of what best serves the selfish nature of man. He did it in the Garden when he twisted the very words of God to entice Adam and Eve to rebel.

Because Malcolm X was accepted as the strong black leader that most personified resistance to the oppressive ideas of the slave master, the term Uncle Tom became the parabolic opposite. This idea was bolstered by the popular depictions of Tom in truncated versions of Uncle Tom’s cabin going back almost a hundred years, which played up his relationship with the Eva character and omitted his Christian fueled defiances and an undeserved relation to Uncle Remus.

The result is that a book and character that played an instrumental part in the abolition of slavery in this country, and are illustrative of what is essentially greatest in human nature have fallen out of favor. It shows how ignorance is perpetuated and how false information can spread like an unabated pox with the same withering effect on society. Liberalism feeds on such misinformation, like the way that the Three-fifths compromise is twisted to appear as if white folks in the government thought blacks were only Three-fifths human.

"So you're the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war." – Abraham Lincoln, upon meeting Harriet Beecher Stowe for the first time.

Uncle Tom’s Cabin was written to destroy the institution of chattel slavery in the United States. It burned through the Union like wildfire, at the time of the Civil War the majority of the nation opposed slavery. People forget that the south was a minority and because of the machinations of the founders, most of the country never knew the stain of our “peculiar institution”.

The left which controls our schools and much of our media have a stake in eternalizing the negative aspects of our past while burying our glories. Many of the destructive ideas prevalent in modern society were birthed in the minds of those still harboring a resentment towards the nation for winning the war between the states. What we need today is a boat load of Harriet Beecher Stowes to write books with the express purpose of destroying liberalism our contemporary peculiar institution and black peoples slavish devotion to bad ideas.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

If Congress passes the healthcare bill, the life will be sucked out of America in more ways than one. Our Republican congressmen may be in the minority and may not be able to stop this monstrosity, so at the minimum we expect them to put procedural roadblocks down everywhere they can, and we would greatly appreciate seeing real passion in their voices when they speak on the floor, on television, and in print. No more wimpy nice guy stuff!

Fight this bill as if your lives, and ours depended on it, because it does!

Monday, December 21, 2009

Look at these faces! Remember them well. These are America's 21st century fascists.

When I first saw this picture, I nearly gagged. Never in my lifetime have I witnessed such brazen, corrupt behavior by politicians. They are the masters of Democratic dirty politics. Name your most-hated bill, and they will be it's proponents. All their proposals are anti-capitalist and illogical. Every promise they have made has been broken. Virtually every statement they make is a lie. It beggars belief that they have the gall to stand before a banner proclaiming "Honest Leadership, Open Government". Pelosi's smug smile reminds me that they are practicing Alinskyites.

Conservatives think of war as a metaphor when applied to politics. For radicals the war is real. That is why partisans of the left set out to destroy their opponents, not just refute their arguments. It is also why they never speak the truth. Deception for them is a military tactic in a war that is designed to elminate their opponents.

The most basic principle of Alinsky’s advice to radicals is, lie to your opponents and potential opponents and disarm them by pretending to be moderates, liberals. This has been the most potent weapon of the left since the end of the Sixties. Racists like Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright posing as civil rights activists, radicals like Henry Waxman and Barney Frank posing as liberals.

Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the others know the public is extremely angry, and that we will seek retribution in the next two elections for having shoved unwanted bills, especially healthcare, down our throats. You can bet they are plotting strategies, as you read this, to undermine conservative votes in 2010 and 2012.

Will they use taxpayer money to fund ACORN or a similar organization to attempt voter fraud?

Will they receive support from the voting machine industry, as they did in 2000 when employees of Sequoia Voting Systems "had been given no choice, despite protestation after protestation, to use inferior paper stock in making the ballots for Florida only in the 2000 Presidential Election. Moreover, they were instructed, again despite their protestations, to misalign the chads on the ballots being sent to Palm Beach County only."

Conservatives, gird your loins, eyes forward, ears open, keyboards at the ready. We are at war!

Monday, December 14, 2009

We’ve all too often heard hateful rhetoric directed at black conservatives for daring to think differently from their kinsmen, so when 96% of the black community votes in virtual lockstep for a candidate, it takes immense courage for a smaller number of blacks to disagree and vote in opposition. However, pulling the lever to support a conservative candidate or idea in the privacy of a polling booth is easier and safer than speaking out publicly. Ironic, isn’t it, that all of us are rightfully expected to embrace diverse shades of melanin, yet in contrast, many in the black community seem to assume or demand that there be no diversity of opinion in the political arena. Fortunately, uniformity of thought is being challenged by individual thinkers within the black community.

At the end of this article are listed a number of black conservative bloggers and others who are attempting to change the minds of friends, families and strangers. They, too, hope to influence public thinking from the grassroots to the highest levels of government. Simply by raising their voices above the crowd of naysayers, they are showing leadership qualities. These individuals deserve full marks for their courage, intellect, curiosity, and fortitude despite the criticisms they probably receive.

These bloggers and thinkers understand that conservatism is the natural home for the black community, because they know traditional values keep families intact, and that good education is the fairest equalizer. For that message to be heard and better understood, they should always be free to speak their minds.

On June 30, 2008, black radio personality and author Larry Elder, published an editorial in Investor’s Business Daily titled “How A Black Can Oppose Barack Obama.” Excerpts from the article take the reader back in time, pointedly questioning their historical knowledge about conservatives and liberals. Hyperlinks have been added:

You might also want to familiarize yourself with the history of the Democratic and Republican parties, and see which one has stood up longer for the rights of people of color.

Do you know that Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution--abolishing slavery granting citizenship rights to newly freed slaves and guaranteeing the right to vote (at least on paper) to blacks, respectively?

Do you know that 36% of babies aborted are black, while blacks make up 17% of live births? Do you know polls show blacks are more pro-life than are whites? Yet the Democratic Party--to which over 90% of blacks belong--is the party of Roe v. Wade, requiring states to legalize abortion on demand?

Do you know that Margaret Sanger, the founder of the organization that became Planned Parenthood, believed that poor blacks were inferior and that aborting their babies made our society better? Look it up.

Speaking of helping the “underprivileged, I’d suggest you read a book called “Who Really Cares,” by Arthur C. Brooks. A non-Republican professor raised by Democrats, he examined the charitable spending habits of Democrats and Republicans. The results surprised him.

Republicans give far more of their money and time for charitable purposes than do Democrats. And the giving is not confined to their churches or other houses of worship. This, by the way, has nothing to do with income. Poor Republicans give more than poor Democrats.

Compassion is not about making people dependent on government. Compassion is about encouraging personal responsibility, and getting people to understand that life is about making choices.

Since the tragic loss of Martin Luther King, a Republican, the ideological pendulum has swung far to the left, but with the help of the black conservatives listed below, and all who follow their lead, the pendulum will eventually swing back towards the right. Perhaps somewhere between these two opposites we, as a human community, will find our shared values.

I hope these folks are connecting with each other to enlarge their circle of influence. They have the opportunity to show the way for anyone willing to listen, learn, and participate. My apologies to other black conservatives whose names I missed during my search of the internet.

NOTE: This list will be updated as new sources become known, so check back occasionally.

Therefore, if you would like to counter Obama's overflowing moneypot with an offer of financial or logistical support to the authors of this campaign, please donate to ProtectOurLibergy.org. Mr. Kerchner tells me that "If a thousand or more conservatives only gave $10 every three months our basic funding needs would be met for the foreseeable future. I know how to do more with less. I can do a lot with very little money using synergy. But a certain basic amount of dollars is needed." To read the pending lawsuit, seeKerchner et al vs Obama et al lawsuit. For further legal analyses and pending actions, see attorney Mario Apuzzo's blog.

Let's hope that if this health care bill passes, someone will immediately file suit, especially before President Obama appoints another Supreme Court judge.

Readers are encouraged to subscribe to The Heritage Foundation. Their mission: To formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

You, Lord, shaped the world as we know it, but that was such a long time ago. Today, The One believes he has a better idea for redesigning humanity and the world.

You created man and woman, blessed them, and said Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. You wanted mankind to fill the cup of life with more life.

The One now considers your vision passé. Today, he argues for allowing the cup of life to empty from the earth. This will create a more perfect world for the chosen ones who remain behind. All that is needed to create this perfect world is a complete-lives system, followed thereafter by a pandemic sickness upon the earth. Disciples of The One will decide who shall be saved, and who shall not be saved through health care rationing.

Devil’s advocates, similar to those working at the Optimum Population Trust, will measure the value of a person’s life on an attenuated bureaucratic yardstick. Of course, the advocates will not subject themselves to the same yardstick. Mengele’s angels will serve on their health care death panels and behind the doors of Planned Parenthood. Oddly, black babies will be PP's most frequent victims.

After The One cedes U.S. sovereignty to a U.N. one-world government, the U.S. and the world will be guided by the Statist’s Ten Commandments. Don’t be surprised if The One then campaigns for the Presidency of this world-governing body, which he will probably call the State of Nirvana after a fictional place he created in his 2003 final exam for Constitutional Law III.

The new State of Nirvana will, of course, improve on the old, and represent The One’s perfect world.

With a reduced human footprint on the planet, the world’s resources will be saved for the remaining few. Additionally, there will be less pollution. Perhaps most importantly, the climate will remain forever static. Icebergs will never melt, the seas will never rise or fall, and flora and fauna will never become extinct.

The smaller human footprint will also mean that fewer dollars will have to be spent on Medicare, disability, and Social Security payments. This will make additional U.S. dollars available for nationalizing everything.

The remaining, and demographically younger, population will be easier than ever to indoctrinate in government schools. Thus, these brainwashed skulls of mush will keep the statist’s flame burning into perpetuity. Conservatism, and the history of the world’s good and bad governments, will probably disappear from human memory. Everyone will become proud Marxists like The One.

If all else fails in ridding the world of the very young, the old and the disabled, The One could begin a Carousel of Death similar to that used in the 1976 movie, Logan’s Run. Volunteering to die for your country before you get “too old” will be a societal obligation, and entertainment at the same time, but with modern technology, it will be a lot tidier than the massacres that took place in the Roman Coliseum. This alternative would help to maintain an equilibrium in the complete-lives system.

In gratitude for saving the planet, enriching government coffers, spreading the wealth to all outstretched hands, and creating an orderly world, The One will surely be allowed by his Disciples and the dumbed-down public to keep his worldly throne to the end of his days.

However, when The One finally stands before St. Peter, and hears his life’s work read from the Book of Remembrance, what do you think he will say in his defense? Do good intentions get you a pass through the gates of Heaven?

Lost but not forgotten on the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Miller was commended by the Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox on 1 April 1942, and on 27 May 1942 he received the Navy Cross, which Fleet Admiral (then Admiral) Chester W. Nimitz, the Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet personally presented to Miller on board aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CV-6) for his extraordinary courage in battle. Speaking of Miller, Nimitz remarked:

"This marks the first time in this conflict that such high tribute has been made in the Pacific Fleet to a member of his race and I'm sure that the future will see others similarly honored for brave acts."